Wildest; God hates false religions? That was typed right after you said the media and Hollywood. But those aren’t religions…
Wildest Bill wrote:
Those wacky, wacky nature worshippers! Why, imagine how insane they’d have to be, to look for beauty and harmony in the natural world, and to think that the hand of God might be glimpsed in God’s creation! They must all be commies or something.
God [sic], I hope not. I couldn’t stand having more than one of me around.
No of themselves, Vanilla, but they are:
A) Tools used by Satan to deceive and leadu us into sin and
B) Symptomatic and symbolic of the rampant humanism that is eroding our nation’s moral fiber.
Hang on, Poly I may be able to offer some assistance, speculative as it may be:
It occurs to me that the problem lies in one or more inadvertently omitted words.
Personally, I favor the first.
Here are two possible corrections (the correction will be bolded):
1].
Hang on, Poly I may be able to offer some assistance, speculative as it may be:
It occurs to me that the problem lies in one or more inadvertently omitted words.
Here are two possible corrections (the correction will be bolded):
Personally, I favor the first.
I’m fairly certain Bill meant #2, given the context of the sentence: He speculates on creating “weird” religions which allow wider behavioral license, as opposed to…
Obeying God.
or
Following the ‘real’ religion .
In the context of the sentence, the second choice makes more sense to me, dispite my distaste for the sentiment.
On the other hand I have no idea how Bill went from “turtles” to “tracers”…The only useage of the term I’m aware of is a type of bullet that leaves a trail when fired. What that has to do with turtles (even Space Turtles) I couldn’t begin to speculate.
Fenris
I fail to see how God could be either pleased or displeased with us, assuming he’s both omniscient and omnipotent. Before he zapped the universe into existence, he knew exactly how everything would turn out, exactly what decision each person would make. He knew he was going to destroy the earth in a Flood, knew the tower of Babel would be built, the Holocaust would happen, and what Holly would serve for breakfast this morning.
If you know for certain beforehand what your creation is going to do, you cannot be displeased when it happens because there is no element of surprise. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, he could have chosen to tweak the atoms in a certain way at the beginning in order to make the outcome pleasing to him. Or, he could choose to interfere with his creation now (which would interfere with free will, of course).
On the same note, god cannot be “pleased” with anything, except to feel a sort of self-satisfaction because again, there is no element of surprise. As a loose analogy, I’m “pleased” when I bake a loaf of bread because it turns out just as I wished it would when I created it- but my pleasure is self-satisfaction for a job well done. If I don’t put the yeast in the batter and the bread doesn’t rise, I can only be displeased with myself for screwing it up. I certainly don’t blame the bread.
If god is displeased, he’s displeased with himself, not with us. If he’s omnipotent and omniscient, he can’t even be displeased with himself, because he recognized any errors he would make before creation occurred. If he made a mistake, he did so deliberately, knowing it was a mistake- and a mistake made deliberately, with full knowledge of the outcome, is not really a mistake at all. Therefore, the world is exactly as god made it to be.
Okay, so I have to know:
did anyone get WB’s “tracers” joke? Because I sure didn’t.
-Ben
Those who have ingested certain hallucinogenic substances, and who are therefore “tripping”, often see lagging images of moving objects, commonly referred to as “tracers”.
WB was asserting that Fenris must be “tripping” to have such visions of turtles. I mean, no rational person believes in things like giant space turtles, talking snakes, amazing multiplying loaves and fishes, parting seas…
Right?
Dr. J
Yeah, Ben, I got it, I think. I believe it was a drug joke. “Tracers” are the visuals that can result from use of hallucinogens and hallucinogenic stimulants (LSD, psilocybin, X), somtimes from straight stimulants (cocaine, amphetamine, and very high doses of caffeine), and very occasionally from THC. And I get them from migraines. They’re similar to the trail left by the Flash in the comics–ghost images left by moving objects.
Physiologically, IIRC, it’s simply an altered visual perception, aided by pupillary dialtion.
Assuming a sentient creator even exists, I would say she is tickled to her toes with every last one of us. We put on a damn fine show.
stoid
So, what you’re saying, Astroboy14 and Stoid, is that we’re a giant game of the Sims, except we know how to find the bathroom a little better.
I can’t disagree with that, but I’m now staggered by the theological implications; we have created life in our image, and it talks like Charlie Brown’s teacher.
It is my honest opinion that God cannot possess all of four qualities, namely omniscience, omnipotence, infinite goodness, and a tendency to regularly interfere with the events on earth, and remain compatible with our universe.
If God is all powerful, than he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants, with no limitations whatsoever. As a result, we may assume that God either wishes our universe to be the way it is, or that he/she/it is choosing not to exercise that power for whatever reason. If God wants this universe to behave as it does, than the implication is that, by our human definition, he/she/it is not good. Humans have been doing evil things to each other since the beginning of recorded history, probably longer. God either cannot stop us, or doesn’t want to.
The point I’m failing so miserably to get across is that if God possessed all four qualities listed above, we would not expect our world to be as it is. He has to be missing at least one. He could be all good, all powerful, and all knowing, and simply not muck around with our affairs. He could muck around with our affairs, in pursuit of an agenda we wouldn’t call good, with the infinite power and knowledge he theoretically has.
I also believe that given an omnipotent diety, you need a damn good reason for the existence of anything that said diety disapproves of.
Feel free to dismiss me as a raving lunatic 
tracer and giant turtles?
Come now, hes not THAT desperate…
The ability to do a thing does not imply either the obligation or the desire to do it. Thus dies the argument that because something is the way it is, an omnipotent God must have forced it so. There is no meaningful contradiction between omnipotence/omniscience and free-will.
libertarian wrote:
I think this is invalid. Your argument goes as follows:
- God can do X.
- The ability of God to do X does not imply that God will actually do X.
Therefore:
- The existence of X does not prove that God wants X.
A proper conclusion would be:
- The non-existence of X does not prove that God cannot do X.
In no way does this solve the omnipotence/free-will problem. To make your argument more concrete:
The ability to create unicorns does not imply either the obligation or the desire to do it. Thus dies the argument that because unicorns don’t exist, an omnipotent God must have forced it so.
I hope you see why this conclusion in no way follows from the premises. In fact, quite the opposite. If God is able to create unicorns, and such creatures don’t exist, the only logical explanation is that God does not want them to exist. I.e., he forced the situation to be exactly how he desires it.
We can do the same with a positive formulation as well:
The ability to create horses does not imply either the obligation or the desire to do it. Thus dies the argument that because horses exist, an omnipotent God must have forced it so.
Again, while the ability to create horses does not imply the desire to do so, the existence of horses does indeed imply such a desire. Thus again we reach the conclusion that “because horses exist, an omnipotent God must have forced it so.”
I keep getting this picture of him with Leonardo, Donatello, and the other two, doing martial arts workouts and eating pizza…
Opus:
I like your reasoning all the way up until it stops. But there was no reason to stop.
Omnipotence as the power to do all things does not imply the compulsion to do all things. After all, if God is omnipotent, then He has the power to resist His own desire. Desire is only one of the motivations of our actions. Even among things totally within our own power as humans, we do some things that we don’t want to do, and we neglect others that we do want to do. God might be motivated by some moral precept — Love, for instance — rather than desire.
Further, not everything that happens is necessarily God-willed unless God is the unary spiritual consciousness. In other words, it might be that He restrains His own power (for any arbitrary reason, not necessarily desire) in deference to the wills of other consciousnesses. Thus, it is not necessary to presume that God wanted horses to exist. If He had any desire at all towards the existence of animals, it might be that what He wanted was for evolution to occur and produce man (after all, the wait for Him is insignificant) to house His spirit, with horses being merely an irrelevant interstice in His plan.
There is no reason to presume a priori that God is a hedonist.
Again with the anthropomorphizing. If God is infinite, how can one attribute to Him such human conceits as “desire?”
andros wrote:
OH MY GOD!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:
I had no idea! Honest!!
“Kids, don’t use drugs, or you’ll see me!”